The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread

[Star One]

Optimal means if money was no object when could they be ready. It's probably more than $400M per year for each company. See slide 9 of this presentation: 

Thanks for the info on that.

As to Bigelow I thought they were talking about using the dream Chaser specifically to serve their stations?

[yg1968]

We know that ULA doesn't do anything for free. Boeing needs a Crew Access Tower for Atlas, so they will pay for that development. I suppose it's possible ULA could build a CST-100 specific CAT that won't work for DreamChaser, or they could build a CAT that works with both vehicles, and have both companies pay for the development. How much of the launch infrastructure would NOT be common between the 2 vehicles ?

The crew tower is probably addressed in the optional milestones since I don't see it in any of the base period milestones in the presentation. Hopefully, the optional milestones will not be redacted from the SAA.  But it might be because the company could easily decide that this information is propietery. But my understanding of optional milestones (under CCdev-2 at least) is that they can be modified. So it might be possible to change certain optional milestones if it becomes necessary to do so.

[happyflower]

Great article Chris.

I really wish there was enough money supplied by Congress to have all 4 of these fine companies compete for CCiCAP.

But as things stand I really believe the best all around (Im not just talking technical ability) companies got picked.

Congrats to them, so now lets get going and launch our astronauts with our own ships.

[kirghizstan]

maybe i just can't find the link but is there video of the complete news conference?  had to bring my girl to ballet

[yg1968]

maybe i just can't find the link but is there video of the complete news conference?  had to bring my girl to ballet

The Bolden press conference isn't worth watching. But the audio press conference with Gerst and McAlister is worth listening to.

See this post for the audio recording of Gerst's press conference:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29587.msg937056#msg937056

Here is the video of Bolden's press conference (if you insist on watching it):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29587.msg937175#msg937175

[A_M_Swallow]

I was thinking about how this announcement would impact Bigelow as well. With the amount of money committed, it'll be interesting to see if Bigelow can ramp up his pace to keep up with SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC.

It'll also be interesting to see if he gets any competition now that the manned access availability story is starting to get clearer. I'd love to see a situation where there starts to be real competition for destinations not just launchers/delivery vehicles.

~Jon

Bigelow may wish to think about applying for an unfunded SAA to cover ground testing of his docking port.  If he plays his cards right then NASA can manage the ground docking of the CST-100, Dragon, Dream Chaser and Orion.  The spacecraft would be moved on cables.

Bidelow's rival is the Excalibur Almaz spacestation.

[Robotbeat]

Optimal means if money was no object when could they be ready. It's probably more than $400M per year for each company. See slide 9 of this presentation: 

Thanks for the info on that.

As to Bigelow I thought they were talking about using the dream Chaser specifically to serve their stations?

Bigelow is partnering most closely with Boeing and their CST-100, but also has agreements with SpaceX.

[Robert Thompson]

Right tool for the right job. The job is stop the hemorrhaging. This correct victory allows me to think about signing on in the future as fan of ATK *cargo.

Poll on SpaceX talk v walk would be neat.

[brihath]

I am pleased to see NASA awarding money to three different human spaceflight programs.  I think they are all deserving players, although my personal bias was to see SNC get a larger award.

It is gratifying to see several different companies bending metal and moving forward towards flight operations.  My biggest concern is about what is sustainable in terms of flight rates.

What I like most about the process is the level of innovation occurring within each company.

[Prober]

All along I thought as many here did that Being and SpaceX were the front runners. When it was decided that three would be funded, two full and one partial I knew then ATK and Sierra Nevada were going to battle it out for the partial funding. ATK made a valiant run on all fronts. The question remains, will they continue on?

Well, if Block 1B is chosen, sounds like there's a pretty good chance NASA will buy the full 10 pairs of 5-seg boosters from ATK.  Also, I think there's some DoD contract in the works for ATK for their ICBM's.  So perhaps ATK would use the profits form those contracts to proceed with Liberty on their own as they've claimed they would, and compete in the commercial launch market.  Will be interesting to see.  Not sure what would happen to the Liberty capsule though, if there's no need for it to go to the ISS.    Liberty may progress just as a commercial launch system for payloads.

People keep forgetting about Athena III. Combine Liberty and Athena III and you get a full launch system capable of fitting a wide variety of needs.

I still am not sure of ATK's willingness to go it alone with the full Liberty. I think the most likely result of not being picked is that they go with Athena III (or something a lot like it) and call it 'Liberty.' It's the most competitive option, IMHO, and leaves the door open for future growth.

who says that ATK's french partner isn't kicking in funding?   See the model shown at the UK show.

[Chris Bergin]

Great article Chris.

I really wish there was enough money supplied by Congress to have all 4 of these fine companies compete for CCiCAP.

But as things stand I really believe the best all around (Im not just talking technical ability) companies got picked.

Congrats to them, so now lets get going and launch our astronauts with our own ships.

Thanks very much!

[Robert Thompson]

Someone mentioned DC's long term exposure of thermal protection system as being a constraint on a life boat role. No orbiter was lost to TPS damage from 2 weeks max? exposure sustained in space. Are there ""cheap"" ways to shield the DC TPS so that it can qualify without caveat for this role?

[mrbliss]

We know that ULA doesn't do anything for free. Boeing needs a Crew Access Tower for Atlas, so they will pay for that development. I suppose it's possible ULA could build a CST-100 specific CAT that won't work for DreamChaser, or they could build a CAT that works with both vehicles, and have both companies pay for the development. How much of the launch infrastructure would NOT be common between the 2 vehicles ?

ULA *could* charge for usage of the tower they build, in order to recoup initial investments.  Just, ya know, thinking out loud...

[Rocket Science]

Someone mentioned DC's long term exposure of thermal protection system as being a constraint on a life boat role. No orbiter was lost to TPS damage from 2 weeks max? exposure sustained in space. Are there ""cheap"" ways to shield the DC TPS so that it can qualify without caveat for this role?

The X-37 stayed up for 15 months and the TPS performed fine as far as we know...

[PeterAlt]

So, the purpose of giving SNC half an award is to have a back up in case the other two fail... Correct?

[Robotbeat]

So, the purpose of giving SNC half an award is to have a back up in case the other two fail... Correct?

Well, NASA wants redundancy. So if there were a problem with one of them, NASA would be able to get rid of one and go with SNC without losing redundancy. So, it's a backup in case one of them fails or becomes too expensive, etc.

[yg1968]

So, the purpose of giving SNC half an award is to have a back up in case the other two fail... Correct?

I am not sure that's the right way of seing it. SNC has as much chances of winning a commercial crew services contract in 2014 (or later) as Boeing and SpaceX at this point. They will receive half of the funding but they should not be seen either as a backup or a junior partner.

I think that Gerst used the word backup at one point during the press conference when discussing SNC but I think that's because Keith from NW was giving him a hard time over the fact that they weren't respecting the agreement with Wolf by claiming that SNC is still a full participant (eventhough it gets partial funding). So Gerst tried to explain why they opted for 2.5 awards instead of only 2 by using the word backup. Incidentally, Ed Mango answered that question better than Gerst did in my opinion. The way that I understand Ed Mango's answer is that receiving half the funding does not make you a partial participant. You are still a full participant.

[baldusi]

So, the purpose of giving SNC half an award is to have a back up in case the other two fail... Correct?

Basic economics, if you expect to ask for two suppliers and only two are available, what are the expected biddings? What if there are three and nobody wants to be left out?

[Robotbeat]

So, the purpose of giving SNC half an award is to have a back up in case the other two fail... Correct?

Basic economics, if you expect to ask for two suppliers and only two are available, what are the expected biddings? What if there are three and nobody wants to be left out?

+1. It gives NASA a much better bargaining situation while simultaneously reducing risk and encouraging broader redundancy and the secondary goal of encouraging a viable commercial spaceflight market. For only a small fraction of the total cost of the commercial crew program, having a provider you can go to in case Boeing or SpaceX decide they want to stick it to you is an incredible investment. It gives you credibility at the bargaining table. Besides, it looks cool and has a different set of capabilities.

(Oh, and: SNC has some features that MIGHT give it operational advantages over Boeing, such as non-toxic RCS and non-ablative TPS... Though those things have their own issues, such as the immaturity of hybrids, the lower performance of nitrous monopropellant, and the lack of BEO capability for the non-ablative TPS. Also, it can get by with a less expensive version of the Atlas V compared to CST-100. But the CST-100 is an arguably more mature design, is a more conservative shape, and Boeing has more institutional experience with the topic while also having a much better proven RCS/ACS system, so for a primary award that meets the primary objective of fast domestic access to ISS, CST-100 wins out right now, though that could possibly change.)

[robertross]

I'll throw my article on, cause I can

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/nasa-ccicap-funding-spacex-boeing-sncs-crew-vehicles/

Very well written article Chris. It presents the concerns I have with SNC's DC getting only a 1/2 award: they need more money to bring this to a CDR, and I hope they can find that money to turn their 'Dream' into a reality.

What can I say except congratulations all around to the winners. Now let's make this happen! The ISS is waiting!